Pubdate: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 Source: Argus, The (CN ON Edu) Copyright: 2011 The Argus Contact: http://www.theargus.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4361 Author: Soban Khan MARIJUANA ARTICLE STIRS ONLINE CONTROVERSY Last week, the Argus published an article by Jonathan Chien, the health promoter at Lakehead's Health and Counseling Center. The article, titled 'Marijuana Talk,' was also published on the Argus website at theargus.ca. It became a controversial subject, generating many negative remarks. Some people commented severely on the nature of research in the article, while others did not refrain from criticizing the very personality of the author. 'This person is a blatant liar and should be either flagged as a false posting, or banned from the site for spreading lies and falsities,' wrote one commenter who identified him/herself as Dave. But the question is, why such a harsh reaction? What was in that article that many people found so offensive? Were there any blatant lies? And if so, what were they? Let's put on our Dr. Holmes attire and get ready for some Argus-style Scotland Yard investigation. Let's first review Chien's article for those who did not read it but are now drawn in by our clever use of the word 'controversy' in the title. Chien's article begins with an overview of the controversial nature of the drug. "Marijuana is a hot topic," he writes. He then gives us the scientific classifications for cannabis. The first part of his article concludes with a study conducted at Lakehead. According to this study, "less than a quarter of students reported they had used marijuana a minimum of one time within the last 30 days. Not everyone's doing it!" It is the second part of Chien's article that stirred the controversy and was the target for much of the criticism levelled at him. This concerns the "effects of marijuana use." It is here that the commentators debate many of the claims put forward. Chien states, "a common belief amongst students is that smoking marijuana is harmless" but goes on to say, "you need to know that marijuana can be harmful and dangerous." "Marijuana has more than 400 toxins and cancer-causing chemicals," he continues. "When compared to tobacco cigarettes, one marijuana joint is equal to five cigarettes... and can cause more lung damage than smoking cigarettes." One commenter strongly disagreed this point, pointing out that the toxins are only produced when cannabis is burned. In contrast to the 400 toxins cited by the author, the commentator writes, "vaporization is proven safe in peer-reviewed research published last year and produces a total of 5 chemicals when done correctly." He or she is quoting a study performed by the University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR), an institute that investigates the medical uses of cannabis. Similarly taking issue with the idea that cannabis can cause lung cancer, the commenter puts forward the views of Dr. Donald Tashkin, a researcher whose previous work considered Marijuana dangerous. "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he concludes. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Allan Erikson agreed to the above commenters' research and posed the rhetorical question that, if such correlation exists between cannabis use and lung cancer, "where are the bodies?" Not all criticism was formulated so rationally. One comment read simply: "This article is little more than biased misinformation designed far more to justify the insane prohibition than to report the truths about cannabis." The next point of contention was the claim in the article that, "like tobacco, marijuana can be addictive. People who use it regularly can develop a psychological or physical dependence." While one commenter outright dismissed this, among other claims, as "gutter science," another took the time to quote a study. According to this study from the 1990s, whose credibility the Argus staff is unable to verify, various substances and their addictiveness can be ranked from a scale of 100 to zero. Whereas Nicotine and crack top the list, Marijuana is somewhere at the very bottom. The rest of Chien's article goes on to warn students against other harms associated with marijuana in terms of trouble with the law and job hunting. But many commenters, even those with a relatively mild tone, blamed the article for its bias. One wrote, quoting a report of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (cfdp.ca/canrep): "Most, if not ALL of what you posted is incorrect. Informed readers know I am correct. Uninformed readers of course, now face the dilemma of which of these two opposing views to believe - mine or Jonathan's. After all, we can't BOTH be right. So here's a fair offer. I don't ask you to assume that I'm right, nor will I attack my 'opponent', or bully you into believing me. I simply ask that you take an hour or two and do some of your own research. I suggest staying with peer-reviewed scientific journals, to eliminate bias and get the benefit of actual, good science." As a reaction to the effects of marijuana on professional and personal development put forward by Chien, many commenters felt that these were actually effects of criminalization of the product, not the product itself. "Criminal record, lost scholarships, lost jobs... These are all problems caused by prohibition, not marijuana," wrote one, while another said that "the inclusion of marijuana in the CDSA (schedule) that creates this legislated prohibition feeds the coffers of organized crime; prohibition provides the impetus for it all, not the substance." But there was still one more common concern that many people raised against the article. They felt that as the author represented the viewpoint of the Health and Counseling Service at Lakehead, he should have been more careful with his claims. "It's one thing to publish your OPINION on something... it is another matter to present as FACT, what is clearly incorrect information. It is particularly irresponsible to do so when you are in a position that carries with it an assumption of credibility." Another asked rhetorically, "this blatant propaganda is coming from a counselor??" Some of these comments also blamed the Argus for publishing such material on the grounds that the research is biased but comes from a position of authority and thus has the potential to misinform and mislead. The case rests with the reading public; as a newspaper, the Argus is not supposed to take sides. However, we are here to provide a platform for a positive discussion. So we ask the student body to conduct their own investigation and tell us the following; Who is right? Who is wrong? Should the Argus have published the article without asking for research references from the Health Center? Or was it the responsibility of the Health Center in the first place to have quoted studies along with their respective claims? Undoubtedly Mr. Chien mentioned certain websites at the end of his article, which, according to him, could be relevant sources for further information. According to Argus inquiry, one of these quoted links (http://www.camh.net/) appeared to be the source of Mr. Chien's article, the other two being Government Canada websites. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake